Don't ask me why, but he just seemed like a much more complete fighter.
Printable View
Don't ask me why, but he just seemed like a much more complete fighter.
It's Marquez, Morales and than Barrera
I don't really know how I'd rank them, all legends with comparable skills and records and it's hard to say when they were at their very best. I do think Marquez started eating his spinach later in his career and that's why he had better longevity and success moving up in weight, but it still makes a case for him, especially his fights with Manny. Morales also had an impressive little streak late running Maidana and Garcia so close, but I don't think his steak was from Canelos butcher or anything. The 3 Morales Barrera fights were so close I don't think anyone can make a good argument for who was "better" based on them. Morales vs Marquez would have been a treat if it happened at a good time.
I used to think it was Morales, but I think that JMM passed him. All three were great, but I think that Barrera is the bottom of the three for sure.
JMM, Barrera, Morales for me. I have a soft spot for Barrera based on what he did to Hamed.
Marquez clean for me. Then as a fan Barrera. Bonus point for the Hamed forehead to ring post. Morales in at 3.
I agree. In his prime Morales was a beautiful complete fighter. I mean like on prime manny Pacquiao, Mayweather, Cotto, Trinidad level. He was matched hard though and his prime fell off him early on.
I also believe Barrera was better than Marquez. He also probably beat Marquez in that fight they had. The decision was a bit tipped towards Marquez.
And don't forget the uncalled knockdown and the point deduction. Close fight, but Barrera was a better fighter than Marquez IMO as styles make fights. That was a 4 point swing. Makes a close fight a Barrera win for me. And I don't listen to cards as evidenced by GGG/Canelo etc. You know who was better.Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderingfighter
About 30 minutes in and a beautiful KD. Shouldn't have hit while on the ground of course, but an obvious KD.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxMbz9qzlpY
I am just re-watching the entire fight. What a great fight this is. Two excellent fighters, so evenly matched, but that KD round was huge IMO. Even taking away a point from Barrera there is still a strong case for a clear Barrera win with that KD scored. A bad mistake on the part of the ref to lose his cool and forget about the KD entirely.
In terms of Morales, he was excellent and it was a great shame him and Marquez never fought. I could see Morales outboxing Marquez, but wouldn't like to bet on it.
I rate Barrera over Morales, but again very evenly matched. I just consider Barrera slightly more intelligent as a fighter.
I have always been an Eric Morales fan and preferred him. I admired Barrera since he beat Kennedy McKinney in that brutal war he had with him. Eric however, had the skills to out box most of his opponents but loved an all action fight. Morales beat a prime and dangerous Pac Man and his fights with Barrera are the best trilogy in boxing. Morales beat and stopped a quality experienced champion in Daniel Zaragoza to start his world domination.
JMM, as p4pking said, “grew” to be a better fighter with age. He always had the beating of Manny Pac, I felt he won all their bouts, but have him below the other two.
Morales, MAB and JMM in that order for me.
I think that JMM is severely underrated by many boxing fans. Who did he really lose to? Basically all of his losses were controversial. Many people thought he beat Norwood, Chris John got a hometown decision, I thought that he clearly beat Pacquiao the first time and the third time. The second was very close. He clearly lost to Floyd but the weight issue was a big deal. Bradley was another case of weight issue and well past his best.
I always say that we put too much credit into official decisions. Imagine if JMM would have gotten those decisions against Pacquiao. History would be much different just because of a simple scorecard. Throughout his career in which he fought great fighters, he arguably only lost to two great fighters in a weight that was much too big for him.
That is true and if he did get all the decisions against Manny Pac, which I think he should have, he would be considered better than the other 2 legends. That is a shame.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
Hard to split these three. To be fair on overall achievements on opposition I'd have to go Jmm, Morrales then MAB. Against my favorite fighter of the three. Could be a whole different history and outcome if they had all met when JMM was calling them out at featherweight and being ignored but I think his lack of maturity would of been exposed then cause you cant fight either of the others from the outside like he once did. I still wouldnt swap anything for that trilogy though. Barreras my favorite though; I loved his in fight game he was so reactive and I thought more powerful when it counted in close, he always dug deep and dug in for warfare and that made the fights we loved.
I think the adaptability and the way Marquez and also Barrera added gears to their game put's Marquez on top for me. He was always a very gifted sharp shooter and to borrow a tired cliché 'not your typical Mexican fighter'. The 2 division jump to Mayweather was fookin nuts with shady last minute contract do-over but as we've seen it's become a thing :-X. That was just Floyd wanting to reclaim p4p bs after self imposed time out of ring. Might also be the reminisce factor with both all over tv cards from the Great western Forum in the early days. Oh and Norwood was as dirty as they come ;D. These 3 are in good company together and we fans are better for it, all true greats who owned the main stage.Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
Regardless of how anyone ranks these three, the truth is that those were all true warriors and boxers in the purest sense of the word. They all had losses at one time or another, and it didn't diminish their image or their career accomplishments. They all fought excellent opposition and.... (aside from a few absurd ducking claims that seem to follow every fighter because there is always somebody with a bone to pick).... they fought all comers. They fought each other and their fights were always competitive. They were also mostly gentlemen in and out of the ring. None of them incurred in catchweight bullshit, nor was any of them ever caught cheating. They all rose from the bottom like all great fighters do. None of them was born with a silver spoon in their mouth, pre-anointed to become great. None of them thought they were bigger than boxing. None of them had special belts made for them, or bogus titles to build them up. None of them had judges in their pockets so blatantly as to have it be an issue every time they got into the ring.
I know some on here think of me as having an anti-Mexican boxing bias, and it's true that P.R.-Mexico showdowns in boxing usually get my adrenaline going pretty good. But the above is clear proof that I have no such bias at all. I just don't like the way part of the boxing landscape has shifted over the years.
(My order is still Marquez, Barrera, Morales). ;D
I don’t really see Marquez, Morales and Barrera as in a different league to each other, more like different fighters with strengths and weaknesses who peaked at different times.
The Barrera Vs Marquez fight happened right as the passing of the torch happened but I thought Barrera did enough even though hitting him when he was down was damn stupid.
Barrera won the first and third Morales fights for me and beat Marquez so technically he has the best head to head ratio but then he did the worst against Pacquiao.
Excellent last 2 posts. That's right, we all have our preferences, but they were all sublime fighters and against one another held their own. Shame we never saw Morales against Marquez though.